Sadiq Khan Opening to Sentencing Debate – 23 May 2011

Mr Speaker

I beg to move the motion:

That this house opposes changing the maximum discount for custodial sentences to up to 50% for those who plead guilty

Should an offender who commits any offence – GBH, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, attempted murder, burglary, mugging, downloading child porn, rape – ANY OFFENCE – be given a “discount” in his or her sentence of up to 50% if they plead guilty at the earliest opportunity.

I will deal with this issue three parts:

Firstly, the background to this policy

Next, I’ll move on to what the real motivation is for the policy

Thirdly, and finally, I’ll put my case why this House should reject the policy

Sentencing represents the climax of the court process at the point when a defendant is found guilty or pleads guilty

Judges or magistrates decide – within set guidelines – what is the most appropriate sentence to be handed down, basing their decision on a range of factors including the severity of the offence

And punishment is a key purpose of sentencing – punishing offenders for the crime they have committed

BUT it’s also about deterrence – to society as a whole, and to the individual in question – aiming to prevent the offender from committing another offence

And a key factor not be underestimated is the protection of the public and respite provided to communities

We must also emphasise the importance of rehabilitating offenders

Sentencing provides the opportunity to work with offenders to reduce the chances of them re-offending in the future

It’s about focusing on what works to ensure there is no drift back into a life of crime, but it also provides the opportunity to work with those who have debilitating mental health issues, and dependencies on drugs and alcohol

Seeking how to balance these purposes of sentencing is also in the judge’s discretion

Plea bargaining is also a key part of our sentencing system

Part of plea bargaining is where an offender’s sentence is reduced on submission of a guilty plea

This is an aspect of our sentencing system which has evolved over many decades, becoming more formalized in recent years

Successive governments have sought to codify the amount of discount one gets off a sentence for pleading guilty

The first real attempt at codification came with Section 48 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

This introduced a requirement for courts to take account of a guilty plea

Section 144 of the 2003 Criminal Justice Act included a statutory provision on reductions in sentences for guilty pleas

And then the Sentencing Council sought to provide structure and judicial direction

Our current system is that if a guilty plea is entered at the first reasonable opportunity there is discretion for a sentence to be reduced by up to 1/3

The reduction becomes less the further along the process the guilty plea is entered

So it’s a ¼ discount if the guilty plea is entered once the trial date is set

And 1/10 when the plea is entered at the door of the court at trial

Nevertheless, I accept that plea-bargaining represents a tension

It’s a tension between delivering justice and improving efficiency in the legal system

And a tension which can potentially bring benefit to victims, who are spared the trauma of a long period in court

Up to now, the system has always sought to ensure that the right balance is struck

If the sentence reduction is too high, it threatens undermining the principles of sentencing, and undermining public confidence in the system

But worse still, it could mean that justice isn’t being served

This government’s Green Paper – Breaking the Cycle – proposed a maximum discount of up to 50% for those who plead guilty at the earliest opportunity

Number 10 and the Lord Chancellor would like us to believe that they are in full consultation mode and are simply “flying a kite” about changing the current practice

And I accept that there has been a consultation on this proposal

BUT the decision by the Lord Chancellor to accept a 23% cut in his budget has led to a fixation with reducing the prison population

This fixation has overriden all other objectives and shows just how out of touch this government has become

The government wants to reduce prison numbers NOT because crime goes down, or fewer people need to be in jail but, quite simply, because of money

And, in fact, the department’s Impact Assessment gives the game away

This sentence discount plan provides the Lord Chancellor with the lion’s share of his reduction in prison places

The impact assessment shows 3400 of the overall savings of 6000 fewer prison places that will be needed as a result of the sentencing package will come from plans to increase the maximum available discount to 50%

This saves £130 million a year

This demonstrates this government know the price of everything but the value of nothing

They just don’t get it!

The consultation ended on the 4th March – there is no more time for the public to have their say and it seems experts and stakeholders who voiced their opposition have been ignored

Last Tuesday morning the Cabinet Sub-Committee signed off the policy

Last Tuesday afternoon, my Rt. Hon Friend the member for Blackburn asked in Justice Questions how giving a half off a sentence would help to protect the public

And do you know what the Minister for Justice, the member for Reigate, said?

NOT, it is still in consultation

NOT, that it was only being considered for non-violent offences or non-serious offences or non-sexual offences

He said, and I quote:

“I would have thought that a moment’s reflection would make that clear – let us suppose that someone who is accused of rape co-operates with the authorities – this is the example when there is a definitive benefit”

And by-the-by when the Lord Chancellor looks to others to blame for trying to introduce “sexual excitement” with the debate

He shouldn’t look at journalists

Or at us

But he should look at his own front bench!

And if there was any doubt that this government had already made up its mind about this policy, it’s plain to see from the Lord Chancellor’s answer to my question on this matter last Tuesday in Justice Questions

I pleaded with him to reconsider, praying in aid not just the Labour Party but also judges, victims groups and the government’s own Victims Commissioner

In answer, he said the proposal would “probably survive the consultation”

And we know this, because the government had originally scheduled tomorrow – the last day before recess – to publish its response to the green paper – a great day to bury bad news

So when the Prime Minister says at Prime Minister’s Questions this is “only a consultation”

When Number 10 spin doctors say the Ministry of Justice are merely “flying a kite”

When we are told it wasn’t going to be an across the board reduction in sentence

We know that this wasn’t the case

I would now like to spend some time talking about why I believe the House should support the motion and reject this policy

The Green Paper, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary last week in Justice Questions, tomorrow’s aborted response to the Green Paper, the Lord Chancellor on BBC Question Time all said the maximum 50% discount would apply to all crimes

As a result, as I have said this will include GBH, attempted murder and rape, as well as burglary, muggings, death by dangerous driving, and all the other crimes that we can all think of that have such a miserable impact on communities up and down the country

Let’s consider the impact of the proposals on some sentences:

• A convicted rape offender could be back on the streets after only 15 months
• An offender convicted of ABH where the assault is  pre-meditated and resulting in relatively serious injury serving three months in prison
• Criminals convicted of burglary when the occupier is at home could serve as little as 10 weeks in prison
But it’s potentially in the very serious crimes where sentences are for longer periods of time where the additional 17% rise in the discount would have the most impact

An additional 17% translates into reductions of years in these circumstances

And it is not just us who think that this policy is wrong

The Sentencing Council – the body charged with offering expert advice on such issues, state that in:

“other common law jurisdictions the largest discount on offer is around a third, with some offering up to 35%. To date no jurisdictions have been identified where the discount is significantly higher than this”

They go on to point out that:

“the Council has not identified any research to date that indicates that an increase in the level of discount would be likely to increase the volume of early guilty pleas”

The only evidence we have seen is how much money this will save – this puts cutting costs ahead of good justice

Further evidence that this government is out of touch is provided by the Government’s very own Commissioner for Victims, Louise Casey, who has argued that:

“a discount of 50% offends many victims, underplays the harm that may have been caused and can seem to be placing administrative efficiency over justice”

Campaign group JUSTICE oppose the policy

The judiciary has also been critical

Lord Justice Thomas – vice-President of the Queen’s Bench Division – and Lord Justice Goldring – senior presiding judge of England and Wales said halving sentences because of guilty pleas will fail to reflect the seriousness of offences

Mr Speaker – this government’s policy on law and order is in a mess – they just don’t get it!

Before the election, the Prime Minister made promise after promise to get elected

He promised to protect frontline services AND now we find he is cutting 14,000 prison and probation staff

His government is also cutting front-line police and we shall debate that later

23 Specialist Domestic Violence Courts are being closed

They promised a prison sentence for anyone caught in possession of a knife

Promise broken

Promised there would be honesty in sentencing, introducing minimum and maximum sentences

Promise broken

Promised to match our prison building programme, upgrading our secure state

Promise broken

I have said on many occasions at the dispatch box and in the media that I am happy to work with the government and the Lord Chancellor to make changes in our criminal justice system that help reduce re-offending, cut crime and make our streets safer

Based on what works, where the evidence shows its effectiveness

But nothing in these plans will reduce re-offending or do justice

They are a recipe for disaster that confirm just how out of touch this government is with the real world

Mr Speaker

I don’t want this debate to descend to whether you are tough on crime or soft on crime

It’s about what works and what is the right thing to do

It’s about understanding how our criminal justice system has the full confidence of victims, families of victims, the judiciary and the general public, who are all integral to its effectiveness

It’s about understanding the value of justice and a willingness to pay the right price for it

Mr Speaker, I would ask colleagues on all sides of the Chamber to think very carefully about this when it comes to voting on this motion

I move

Ends